Hacker News Reader

Comment by travisoneill1 | Hacker News Reader

And what do these people think would have happened if Exxon had made their findings public? Everyone would have dropped everything and suddenly stopped using oil? How many other companies factor in climate change when valuing their assets? (none) I have nothing but contempt for these activists who try to blame corporations instead of recognizing that it is their own desire for modern convenience that creates demand for oil.

View on HN

If Exxon and all the other fossil fuel companies had not spent large sums of money to suppress climate research, perhaps we would have started moving away from fossil fuels and become concerned about climate change sooner, or be more concerned about the impending climate catastrophe.

Personally, if it were not for Exxon’s lying to its own employees (I was one), I would have switched from being skeptical to believer a good ten years earlier.

That times a few hundred thousand is a political difference.

Who else do we hold accountable except the companies that profit on the short sighted behavior? I am willing/wanting to pay more for my luxuries but unless we make everyone do it, nothing changes.

If Exxon doesn't release the information, definitely nothing happens, if they do then maybe something happens.

You don't hold anyone accountable, even though we all are. You fix the damn problem. Pointing fingers and assigning blame is pretty much useless in solving any type of problem.

Charles Koch and other billionaires and oil interests are literally spending hundreds of millions of dollars per year funding the ultra-right wing US ecosystems of think tanks and academics, and a large part of the motivation is to prevent action to deal with climate change. They're fighting. But fighting back is wrong?

Dark Money by Jane Mayer is a good place to read more. Charles Koch hired private investigators to tail her back when she was working on the book. That's a strong endorsement!

We could have had a carbon tax years ago and this is a clear example of the deception that corporations have done in order to avoid that outcome.

A revenue neutral carbon tax that puts money back into people’s pockets at that.

It's 50 years later and we still don't have a carbon tax even though everyone has known about global warming basically the whole time and much more comprehensive research than Exxon ever did is now public domain. There is about a 0% chance this would have been different if Exxon had released its research.

The point is that if Exxon went public with these findings (and in general was more honest about climate change sooner) it would be harder for them and others to lobby politicians against a carbon tax.

Even though the science is clear, nearly every republican congressperson on the relevant committees doubts that humans are the main driver of climate change which is pretty necessary belief if you want to put in a carbon tax.

This same type of argument applies to the large subsidies that exist to this day. It would have been politically much harder to secure subsidies of the magnitude that exist today if they too had research out that supported the scientific consensus.

The political hurdle to a carbon tax has nothing to do with Exxon's lobbyists. Politicians are scared shitless of raising gas prices. When France tried to do it recently it caused massive riots.

French riots were caused by a large number of things, but the pro-global warming lobby managed to focus public anger on the carbon tax, instead of all the other causes for their economic woes.

Mailing each man, woman, and child two equal cheques, with the words 'CARBON PROPSPERITY TAX', one at Christmas, and one at Thanksgiving would very quickly turn public opinion towards a carbon tax.

This is brilliant. A progressive enough government could even give people “a free trial” of a carbon tax by having this part of it kick in a few months before the tax starts, with the check explaining what the money was coming from.

It wouldn't be as easy as that. A carbon tax will result in higher prices of a lot of goods, including food: anything that has to be shipped has some carbon built into the price, and farming uses a lot of oil-fuelled machines. It wouldn't necessarily be a large increase, but it would make a potent talking point against it. Even if you got it passed, they would see prices rise before the "carbon prosperity check" arrived.

It's a good idea even though there are more difficulties than I mentioned. But it's not an easy sell.

Are you really going to claim that the fossil fuel industry’s massive lobbying effort has had no impact on fossil fuel subsidies or taxing carbon? You think it’s entirely due to gas prices?

If you or anyone could prove this, they would be in a position to save the fossil fuel industry massive amounts of money (and therefore probably also figure out a way to get a cut of that).

Well. If they had released their research and not thrown container loads of money at denialist lobby groups and think tanks, I think it could have been different. Perhaps all those US Republican politicians who used to accept climate change before George HW Bush was elected would still be convinced. Exxon brag about the billions in Arctic drilling rights they secure from Russia after they bloody melted it enough. Maybe they should have released research with a plan to pivot to mostly not oil.

BP and Exxon annoy me particularly. They paint themselves so damn eco-friendly in ads, but chuck blank cheques at those working against eco-sustainability and carbon reduction.

Hopefully the next generation find a way to prosecute when they get into positions of influence and power.

Greenpeace, but the timeline is right:

[1] https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/global-warming/exxon-and-the-...

How many cities could’ve been designed with density and pedestrians prioritized over cars had we been aware? How many lives and how much of our desires had been shaped by it?

By this logic, paid assassins shouldn't get in trouble and only the people that pay them should.

The fact that governments invested heavily in oil for the benefit of these corps, it's really a stretch to blame consumers. What other choice in energy did they have ? Consider the fact that half the cars in the early 20th century were electric. What we are dealing with is called a market failure, of the most extreme kind.

None whatsoever, which is why it is silly to blame a corporation for an engineering problem. The gas powered engine won because it was vastly superior until the invention of the lithium ion battery. Not having the technology you wished you had is not a market failure.

If we had priced in the externalities of using a gas powered engine right from the start it wouldn't have been nearly as dominant. There might have been an actual market for electric cars for in-town driving, getting groceries, etc...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com